CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Chotzner, J., Charu Chunder Ghose, J.
B. Walvekar & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 16-12-1926
Two appeals arose from prosecutions under certain sections of the Calcutta Police Act. The accused were charged with conducting common gaming houses. The court found that gaming was indeed going on at the premises and that the places were kept for profit or gain, constituting common gaming houses. The validity of the warrant and the evidence of gaming were extensively analyzed. The court held that the appellants were properly convicted under Section 44 of the Calcutta Police Act and dismissed the appeals.
JUDGMENT
Charu Chunder Ghose, J. - There are two appeals, being Appeals Nos. 714 and 715 of 1925, arising out of two prosecutions under certain sections of the Calcutta Police Act, being Bengal Act IV of 1866. The accused B. Walvekar and three others named R.N. Habib, Makbular Kahman and Gujanand are the appellants in Appeal No. 714, while the accused R. Walvekar is the sole appellant in Appeal No. 715. In the first case the accused have been convicted u/s 44 of the Calcutta Police Act and have been sentenced to pay certain fines, i.e., the accused B. Walvekar has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three weeks; the accused R.N. Habib has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three weeks; the accused Makbular Rahman and Gujanand have each been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three weeks. In the second case the accused R. Walvekar has been convicted under a. 44 of the said Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three weeks.
2. The facts in the two cases are analogous and it will be convenient to dispose of the two appeals by one judgment. The accused B. Walvekar is the secretary of a club known as the New Sports Club, which has its head office at premises Nos. 4, 5 and 6, British Indian Street, and which has 11 branches in various parts of Calcutta, while of the other accused, R.N. Habib is the lessee of the said premises and Gujanand and Makbular Rahmam are employed as clerks in the said club. They were charged with being the owners, occupiers and having the use of the first floor of the said premises Nos. 4, 5 and 6, British Indian Street in Calcutta, known as the New Sports Club, knowing and wilfully permitting the same to be opened, kept or used by others as a common gaming house and assisting and conducting the business of the said common gaming house at 12-40 P.M., on the 22nd August, 1925, at the said premises. The accused E. Walvekar was charged with being the owner, occupier and promoter of a common gaming house, namely, the Aryan Sports Club, at 15-6, Zakeria Street in. Calcutta, and using and permitting the same to be used as a common gaming house for laying wagers and bets on the Poona and Calcutta Races.
3. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate who tried these two cases found that gaming was going on at the two places mentioned above and that the said places were kept for the profit or gain of the persons using them and that as such they were common gaming houses. Both the places were raided under warrants signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and various articles, which, according to the learned Magistrate, were instruments of gaming were found at the said places. It was held that instruments of gaming having been found at the two places mentioned above, the presumption u/s 47 of the Calcutta Police Act arose that the said places were used as common gaming houses. The learned Magistrate further held that apart from the question of presumption u/s 47 of the Calcutta Police Act, the evidence on record pointed to the conclusion that the two places in question were carried on as common gaming houses for the purpose of profit or gain.
4. It appears from the record that a warrant was issued on the 21st August 1925 purporting to be signed by Mr. H.C. Hunt, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, under the provisions of Section 46 of the Calcutta Police Act authorising Sub-Inspector, A. Gany, to enter into premises Nos. 4, 5 and 6, British Indian Street, and to search for all instruments of unlawful gaming which might be therein and to arrest, search and bring before him or any other Justice of the Peace the keepers of the same as also the persons there haunting, resorting and playing, to be dealt with according to law. This warrant was executed on
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.